1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

He bonked his secretary, now Prescott wants to screw us all!

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Tommy B, 1 May 2006.

  1. Tommy B

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 23 Nov 2004

    Posts: 8,027

    Location: The Place To Be

    <title shamelessly stolen from the sun>

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006200038,00.html

    Yeah, it's the Sun - I know, but what they are saying is disgusting tbh. How is taxing someone because they "have a nice view" justified?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 1 May 2006
  2. cymatty

    Capodecina

    Joined: 27 Sep 2004

    Posts: 13,305

    Location: South Yorkshire

    Oh great bump up council tax to pay for the revaluation costs of the new system, how stupid is that. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,019

    Location: Vvardenfell

    Old story (took the Sun a while to notice a story that originally came out late last year). I'm also fairly certain that it has been discussed here as well.

    But just to play devil's advocate: the council tax banding of your house is supposed to reflect its market value (hence the re-valuation exercise due soon), so if you increase the value of your house then surely it is correct that it might increase your council tax? After all, if you sell it, then the new owners will be paying the new rate of tax? But another thought: could I stone-clad my house then demand to be in a lower band?


    M
     
  4. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    TBH I don't think that Prescott is fully responsible for this. You think he is the only one who approved of it, that Tony has no idea or couldn't veto it with ease...

    The tabloids are prodding at Prescott becasue they can. They like to excercise their influence.

    If Prescott were to resign, he would either end up back in the cabinet after 18 months or head of the UN...
     
  5. Cookie-Monster

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,044

    Location: London

    but to play fair then surely the cannot only revalue the cost side of the housing but also the benefit side and increase stamp duty to a sensible rate,

    they want all income flows to the government to be index linked, but any credits to be based on a baseless historical value.
     
  6. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 8,089

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    That's not quite the case, as currently valuation of your property for council tax is not it's sale price but it's market value at April 1991 prices. If valuations are updated next year and improvements taken into account when estimating prices when inserted back into current council tax brackets 90% of entire country will find themselves between band F and H for properties of nominal value above £120k for any shabby ex-council flat and £160k to £320k for any house. Suddenly everyone in band C will find themselves in band F or G, which for example would mean my council tax would jump from £1000 a year to £1875 a year.
     
  7. jezsoup

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,024

    Location: Bradford

    I was watching Grand designs the other day, they werre doing up this old barn. It had had a load of windows that had been blocked up hundreds of years ago due to the fact a tax was brought in called "window tax", basically the more windows you have the more tax you pay. Retard yes I know.

    Now look at the picture in the first post..... Its even more absurd that the window tax fromt he 17th and 18th centuray.
     
  8. jezsoup

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,024

    Location: Bradford


    Quoted for truth!!!!!!
     
  9. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,993

    I hope he does. Its time someone put that last nail in the coffin of that pointless talking shop and he would be just the person to screw it up enough.
     
  10. sparemips

    Gangster

    Joined: 5 Jan 2005

    Posts: 273

    Prescott started out as a bar steward and is still one.
     
  11. Shootist

    Gangster

    Joined: 25 Apr 2006

    Posts: 100

    He started out as "Johnny Two Jags", now he's "Johnny Two Shags"
    As for the council tax. My house is in band A and likely that it would remain in band A even after revaluation. There would be no justification to increase the cost of the bands unless we were going to get much better services.

    Sorry, that's just too logical for councils, governments etc. Shame. :mad:
     
  12. pyro

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Nov 2002

    Posts: 16,167

    How can a dude with his face pull? :p

    Anyway...I don't see a point in this tax, then again I don't see how the tax for petrol is actually twice what petrol costs. Maybe they want us to live in slums.
     
  13. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Petrol tax is a lot more than twice what petrol costs. If it wasn't for tax, petrol would be about £1 a gallon. On the other point, this government takes as much tax as it thinks it can get away with.
     
  14. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    [​IMG]
     
  15. jezsoup

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,024

    Location: Bradford

    How does the Labour gouvernment justify this massive increase in fuel tax then? Has it ever given a specific reason for the increase? Have we, the British public, seen any marked improvement due to the massive increase in tax?
     
  16. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    The environment I believe. If they were serious about the environment however then they would tax aviation fuel and not build new airports. Doing those things while preaching about being green is a total farce. Most car journeys are far more essential than a cheap package holiday to Spain or whatever.
     
  17. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    In percentage terms it's a tax cut. It was 72% in 95 and it's "only" 66% now.
     
  18. jezsoup

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,024

    Location: Bradford

    So is the tax mean to be a deterant to us using our cars? What have they spent all the money extra money raised on then?
     
  19. fini

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 26 Aug 2004

    Posts: 7,569

    Location: London

    It's supposed to act as a detterant.

    I agree with Meridian, but I also agree with Cookie-Monster - although IIRC they have fiddled with stamp duty a bit over the last couple of years - though ofcause not enough.

    fini
     
  20. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Yes. Both to deter us from using cars and to buy a more fuel efficient one.

    The Iraq/Afghanistan wars, billions donated to Africa and the new EU members to improve their countries while ours deteriorates, £1 billion a year rebate given up to the EU for nothing in return, the list is endless.